Reality Tv

[Fawzo]

There is no "for the sake of argument". If you believe in the G-d of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob then, he has forbidden it. If you do not believe in that god then your god may have not forbidden it.

I will attempt to answer your questions once you have answered mine. You see our discussion can only be productive when there is an exchange.

My question to you therefor must be; ... and still is ... Which and how many of the regulations on sexual morality espoused in Leviticus 18 are you saying are wrong? Is it just verse #22 or are there more?

We know having sex with blood relations causes genetic problems so I agree with those. I also feel as if sex with animals is wrong since an animal cannot give it's consent.

I feel the question isn't always black and white though regarding sexual relations between non-blood related people who have reached the age of consent. In our human society the act of adultery and the responsibility for rearing young create disharmony which in an a more evolved society may not be the case. In a more evolved society people may unconditionally care so much for the happiness of others they won't care who the ones they love decide to have intercourse with and maybe some type of localized governed nursing agency raises everyone's children.

We also know that verse 16 isn't an absolute edict either since men are lawfully bound to have sex with their brother's wife if the brother were to die and leave no children behind. God will even kill someone for refusing to do so as was the case with Onan.

So as you see I feel the laws given may have been fine for a less evolved society struggling to live surrounded amid hostile forces, and many of them still to this day bear merit to help keep the peace and tranquility of society, but as society becomes more enlightened they will need to evolve as society evolves.

Highly Intelligent humans still don't think God views people as abominations for eating crab cakes, shellfish and pork, or for working the Sabbath, or for wearing clothes made of multiple fibers, or for planting multiple crops in the same fields.

We have evolved and our laws have evolved. What if we judged and killed all those people in the text above for those simple everyday actions which mankind once was told God hated. How barbaric would we be seen as. Those judging and condemning and harming homosexuals are just as barbaric in my eyes and the eyes of enlightened people the world over.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Fawzo

[Brother Kaman]

We know having sex with blood relations causes genetic problems so I agree with those. I also feel as if sex with animals is wrong since an animal cannot give it's consent.

I feel the question isn't always black and white though regarding sexual relations between non-blood related people who have reached the age of consent. In our human society the act of adultery and the responsibility for rearing young create disharmony which in an a more evolved society may not be the case. In a more evolved society people may unconditionally care so much for the happiness of others they won't care who the ones they love decide to have intercourse with and maybe some type of localized governed nursing agency raises everyone's children.

We also know that verse 16 isn't an absolute edict either since men are lawfully bound to have sex with their brother's wife if the brother were to die and leave no children behind. God will even kill someone for refusing to do so as was the case with Onan.

So as you see I feel the laws given may have been fine for a less evolved society struggling to live surrounded amid hostile forces, and many of them still to this day bear merit to help keep the peace and tranquility of society, but as society becomes more enlightened they will need to evolve as society evolves.

Highly Intelligent humans still don't think God views people as abominations for eating crab cakes, shellfish and pork, or for working the Sabbath, or for wearing clothes made of multiple fibers, or for planting multiple crops in the same fields.

We have evolved and our laws have evolved. What if we judged and killed all those people in the text above for those simple everyday actions which mankind once was told God hated. How barbaric would we be seen as. Those judging and condemning and harming homosexuals are just as barbaric in my eyes and the eyes of enlightened people the world over.

Amen

[lordie]

I second that brother

Amen

We shouldnt harm orjudge any one different

[Pastor Dave]

Well Fawzo, I have to give you credit ... I really didn't think you'd answer.

We know having sex with blood relations causes genetic problems so I agree with those. I also feel as if sex with animals is wrong since an animal cannot give it's consent.

I feel the question isn't always black and white though regarding sexual relations between non-blood related people who have reached the age of consent.

I'm going to present what I'm understanding you to be saying. If I misunderstand something I apologize in advance.

For the most part you agree that the prohibitions in Leviticus 18 are sexually moral.

No sex with animals .... moral

No sex with Mommy or Daddy .... moral

No sex with sister/brother .... moral

No sex with aunt/uncle ... moral

No sex with grandpa/grandma .... moral

No sex with granddaughter/grandson ... moral

However, if I'm understanding your post correctly

Sex between two men is ok as long as both are consenting adults

Sex with your Fathers second wife is ok as long as both are consenting adults

Sex with your Mothers second husband is ok as long as both are consenting adults

Sex with your step sister/brother is ok as long as both are consenting adults

Sex with your sister-in-law/brother-in-law is ok as long as both are consenting adults

Sex with your blood uncles wife is ok as long as both are consenting adults

Sex with your blood aunts husband is ok as long as both are consenting adults

Sex with a woman and her daughter is ok as long as alll three are consenting adults

Sex with a woman and her granddaughter is ok as long as all three are consenting adults

Since your main objection to having sex with relatives is because children might be born with genetic defects then if birth control measures were taken would it then be acceptable to you?

If that's how you choose to live your life that's up to you. That's really not what we were talking about to begin with. I understood us to be discussing

"So now I must ask you should Christian Americans still stand for"

My response is still an adamant Yes! Christians, whether American or not, should continue to stand for moral behavior. Since you asked that we put aside the Noahide laws for this discussion we then must fall back to the Mosaic laws known as the Ten Commandments. We still have the law against adultery which can be expanded to include all sexual immorality.

If your god is Oden then do as Oden says, if your god is Zeus then do as Zeus commands you, if Shiva is your god do as Shiva tells you. If your god has some other name or no name, do as your god teaches. But if your god is YHVH the Elohim then do as YHVH the Elohim has instructed you.

they won't care who the ones they love decide to have intercourse with and maybe some type of localized governed nursing agency raises everyone's children.

To me the first part of that statement indicates a disassociation between love and "intercourse". I simply can't agree with that point of view, although I may have at one point in my life. To me when sex is accompanied by love there is spiritual connection and this is an integral part of, what you call, intercourse.

As far as a "localized governed nursing agency" raising my children or grandchildren ....... You're looking for a fight now Bubba! There is no way any ... and I mean any loving parent is going to turn their children over to the government to be raised by civil servants who don't love the children and are likely only there to pick up a check.

We also know that verse 16 isn't an absolute edict either since men are lawfully bound to have sex with their brother's wife if the brother were to die and leave no children behind.

It seems you are still having trouble separating the laws intended for the Jewish people from the laws intended for gentiles. Even so ...... if the brother dies .... now get this .... She is no longer his wife but is now his widow!!!!!

I said if you answered my question I would attempt to answer yours.

Now can you tell me who can hermaphrodites and bi-sexual chimeras have sex with who share the genetic makeup of both male and females alike?

No I can't tell you who they can have sex with.

What has that got to do with "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind"

Are they forbidden from ever loving anyone and making love to that person who returns their love.

Earlier you insinuated love was disassociated with "intercourse". Here you seem to be saying love and intercourse are one and the same. I can't agree with that view either. I can love someone without having, or even desiring, sex with them.

So Pastor Dave the folks who so ignorantly judge these people as abominations in the eyes of God

Now you are twisting the words of scripture. In fact, as I see it you are attempting to have genetic defects seen as the same thing as a man lying with a man as a woman. I don't think most homosexual men would appreciate their lifestyle being compared to a genetic defect.

Homosexuals are not called an abomination in scripture. The act of a man having sex with another man is what is called the abomination. Not the man!

It appears you are the only one in this thread calling any person an abomination.

Plus Christians might not know that No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all. 10% of Male Sheep are homosexuals and I think 4% of the whole animal kingdom is.

But we are not talking about animals here. We are talking about people. People who have been given the capability to know good and evil.

Now to be honest, personally, I don't care if you have sex with men. It doesn't bother me in the least. I've had a few gay friends over the last half century. That has nothing to do with Christian Morality. And it has even less to do with Christians standing up for Biblical standards of morality. We also stand against murder, theft, animal cruelty, and lying to have someone punished for something they are innocent of. If Christians fail to stand for morality then immorality will surely take over.

We shouldnt harm orjudge any one different

Are you saying we shouldn't judge the pedophiles, the thieves, the murderers, the wife abusers, the gang-bangers, or those involved in the "knockout game" just to name a few?

Edited December 27, 2013 by Pastor Dave

[Fawzo]

No I can't tell you who they can have sex with.
What has that got to do with "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind"

Hermaphrodites are folks born with both pairs of sexual organs. These people are basically both male and female, and on rare occasions both sexual organs are fully operational. So who can they make love to? In God's eyes can they choose either sex they prefer or are they to abstain from sex completely because in every case they will be sinning mankind with mankind and womankind with womankind.

What percentage of male genetic makeup must a human be of the 1% of all humans born with transgender issues ( 70,000,000 humans) before God is ok with them having sex with a female.

Earlier you insinuated love was disassociated with "intercourse". Here you seem to be saying love and intercourse are one and the same. I can't agree with that view either. I can love someone without having, or even desiring, sex with them.

The Bible doesn't make distinctions between Love and intercourse. Many folks were forced to marry those they had no love for and that was fine in God's eyes. This is not pertinent to the main question being asked.


Now you are twisting the words of scripture. In fact, as I see it you are attempting to have genetic defects seen as the same thing as a man lying with a man as a woman. I don't think most homosexual men would appreciate their lifestyle being compared to a genetic defect.

There is only one person in this discussion labeling natural genetic makeup defective and that would be you sir. I agree no one does appreciate such ignorance.


But we are not talking about animals here. We are talking about people. People who have been given the capability to know good and evil.

Yes, we are talking about people many of whom who are born naturally with a genetic makeup that makes them partial to same sex unions just as everything else is in nature. It is natural and the act is natural. Not an abomination.

Now to be honest, personally, I don't care if you have sex with men. It doesn't bother me in the least. I've had a few gay friends over the last half century. That has nothing to do with Christian Morality. And it has even less to do with Christians standing up for Biblical standards of morality. We also stand against murder, theft, animal cruelty, and lying to have someone punished for something they are innocent of. If Christians fail to stand for morality then immorality will surely take over.

For the record I am straight and must admit from past programming I am a bit homophobic myself when it comes to homosexual males. I can not stand by though and tolerate the discrimination and hatred I see quite often being vexed at these individuals, due merely to the fact that many were born with a specific genetic makeup. It is barbaric ignorance which blights our society and such ignorance has caused much more devastation then any number of homosexual unions has ever done.

Edited December 27, 2013 by Fawzo

[Pastor Dave]

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

Here’s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won’t show up until later in life.

Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births

Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births

Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births

Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births

Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births

........<snip>

Wow Fawzo, did you really give us that link without reading anything more than the statistics you wanted to quote?

Hermaphrodites are folks born with both pairs of sexual organs. These people are basically both male and female, and on rare occasions both sexual organs are fully operational.

First off, according to the Intersex Society of North America, you know, the site you referred us to, they prefer the term intersex. Also from their website;

The words “hermaphrodite” and “pseudo-hermaphrodite” are stigmatizing and misleading words.

five ISNA-associated experts recommend that all terms based on the root “hermaphrodite” be abandoned because they are scientifically specious and clinically problematic.

Then we have you either showing your ignorance, or spreading outright lies about the intersexed.

again from ISNA;

The mythological term “hermaphrodite” implies that a person is both fully male and fully female. This is a physiologic impossibility.

and from wikipedia

there has yet to be a documented case where both gonadal tissues function.

and

It can be associated with mutation in the SRY gene.

A little more from the ISNA website you may want to know before you continue.

Does ISNA think children with intersex should be raised without a gender, or in a third gender?

No, and for the record, we’ve never advocated this.

First, how would we decide who would count in the “third gender”? How would we decide where to cut off the category of male and begin the category of intersex, or, on the other side of the spectrum, where to cut off the category of intersex to begin the category of female?

Some people live and die with intersex anatomy without anyone (including themselves) ever knowing.

Which variations of sexual anatomy count as intersex? In practice, different people have different answers to that question. That’s not surprising, because intersex isn’t a discreet or natural category.

So nature doesn’t decide where the category of “male” ends and the category of “intersex” begins, or where the category of “intersex” ends and the category of “female” begins.Humans decide. Humans (today, typically doctors) decide how small a penis has to be, or how unusual a combination of parts has to be, before it counts as intersex. Humans decide whether a person with XXY chromosomes or XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity will count as intersex. (so why are you asking me to answer a question doctors and even the intersexed themselves can't agree on.)

Rather than trying to play a semantic game that never ends, we at ISNA take a pragmatic approach to the question of who counts as intersex.

So you see Fawzo I can't tell you who the intersex can have sex with. It's not specifically addressed in the Bible. Doctors can't agree what constitutes intersex. The intersex themselves don't advocate raising a child without assigning a gender. And many die having never questioned their gender.

The Bible doesn't make distinctions between Love and intercourse.

Really???? As much as I've seen you throw scripture in other Christians face and yet you still want to make a statement like that. Although we normally read the Bible in English it wasn't written in that language. OT Hebrew NT Greek. So let's take a look at four words in the Greek that were translated as love Only one of these are associated with sex.

Agape .... means love in a "spiritual" sense. It often refers to a general affection or deeper sense of "true unconditional love" rather than the attraction suggested by "eros."

Eros ..... is "physical" passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. Romantic, pure emotion without the balance of logic.

Philia ....is "mental" love. It means affectionate regard or friendship in both ancient and modern Greek. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity

Storge .....means "affection" in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring. Almost exclusively used as a descriptor of relationships within the family.

For the record I am straight and must admit from past programming I am a bit homophobic myself when it comes to homosexual males.

I'm sorry Fawzo, I didn't realize you were homophobic. I also didn't mean to insinuate that you were homosexual. I meant that you in the general anyone other than me sense.

So now that we have dealt with intersex can we get back to the subject? Neither government nor society have the right to make Phil take any position contrary to the scripture of his religion! People of faith should not have to apologize for what their faith teaches. A&E can suspend him but they can also lose their highest rated show.

Because this family believes in a bigger God. The same God that roughly 70 percent of Americans believe in. The Robertsons take their faith seriously, and one of the more important elements of that faith involves putting no god before theirs. Not even the suits at the big network.

During their negotiations with A&E, Jase Robertson told the GQ reporter, “the three no-compromises were faith, betrayal of family members, and duck season.”

Ironically, there was a day not too long ago when network executives thought it best for gay people to keep quiet about their lifestyle.

If anything, a new brand of intolerance is rising from certain gay activists hell-bent on bullying Christians into suppressing their core beliefs — or else. They are also showcasing their own narrow-mindedness by judging a man’s entire life through the narrow prism of their own agenda.

Here's one from the GQ reporter that Phil's comments were made to, speaking of Phil's property; "The ecology here has been so perfectly manipulated that it feels as if two giant hands reached down from the sky and molded the land itself, an effect that I’m sure would please Phil."

So now I must ask you should Christian Americans still stand for the every jot and tittle of the Law as Matthew puts forth or should maybe your statement be amended to state that Christian Americans just should be held accountable to stand for New Testament Codes of conduct which Jesus put forth, which doesn't condemn homosexuality at all.

Perhaps you should get a red letter edition of the Bible. If you had one you would have known that in Matthew 5:18 Jesus himself was speaking when he said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

As for New Testament Codes of conduct how about we look at 1 Corinthians 6:18 from the International Standard version;

Keep on running away from sexual immorality. Any other sin that a person commits is outside his body, but the person who sins sexually sins against his own body.

.

[Dan56]

After a controversial week where Phil Robertson refused to apologize for his comments, and Willie Robertson said the show would not continue without Phil, A&E folded and said they would continue filming the show with Phil.

Its nice to see the anti-Christian network drop to their knee's and relent. Score it Jesus 1 A&E zip.

Money is obviously a lot more important to A&E than their principles. It took them a while to realize that not too many gays watch Duck Dynasty.

[Fawzo]

First, how would we decide who would count in the “third gender”? How would we decide where to cut off the category of male and begin the category of intersex, or, on the other side of the spectrum, where to cut off the category of intersex to begin the category of female?

Some people live and die with intersex anatomy without anyone (including themselves) ever knowing.

Which variations of sexual anatomy count as intersex? In practice, different people have different answers to that question. That’s not surprising, because intersex isn’t a discreet or natural category.

So nature doesn’t decide where the category of “male” ends and the category of “intersex” begins, or where the category of “intersex” ends and the category of “female” begins.Humans decide. Humans (today, typically doctors) decide how small a penis has to be, or how unusual a combination of parts has to be, before it counts as intersex. Humans decide whether a person with XXY chromosomes or XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity will count as intersex. (so why are you asking me to answer a question doctors and even the intersexed themselves can't agree on.)

Rather than trying to play a semantic game that never ends, we at ISNA take a pragmatic approach to the question of who counts as intersex.

So you see Fawzo I can't tell you who the intersex can have sex with. It's not specifically addressed in the Bible. Doctors can't agree what constitutes intersex. The intersex themselves don't advocate raising a child without assigning a gender. And many die having never questioned their gender.

My ignorance aside, what you just stated is the whole point I am trying to make. People and even doctors can't definitively pinpoint where male and female begin and end and all the hormones and genes which decide one's sexual orientation. If we can't properly designate what sex people are and how their hormones which arise from such genetic makeups affect their physiology and their sexual preferences how can any sensible person consider the desires of these people a sin and hold prejudices and create laws to discriminate against them. In the genetic random soup that creates humans from recombining DNA the possibilities are endless as can be seen by even briefly looking into the matter. I am almost certain an intelligent empathetic deity could not judge them as abominations either as he is directly responsible for the system which gave rise to their unique birth just as he is responsible for the births of all creatures great and small.

I fully understand the differences of the word Love in the Greek New Testament. My point is that in the Old Testament it is not a Godly prerequisite before intercourse was permissible.

FI'm sorry Fawzo, I didn't realize you were homophobic. I also didn't mean to insinuate that you were homosexual. I meant that you in the general anyone other than me sense.

May I note that I said a bit homophobic which is a far cry from the raging homophobe I was in my youth. I think my fear is basically that some guy will admire this cute little Alpaca more then I would like

So now that we have dealt with intersex can we get back to the subject? Neither government nor society have the right to make Phil take any position contrary to the scripture of his religion! People of faith should not have to apologize for what their faith teaches. A&E can suspend him but they can also lose their highest rated show.

Well that may very well depend on how his contract with the studios is written and what it states. Were you as big a defender of the Dixie Chicks remember them?

Is it right for governments or societies to discriminate against any human being just because of the way they were naturally born?

Perhaps you should get a red letter edition of the Bible. If you had one you would have known that in Matthew 5:18 Jesus himself was speaking when he said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
As for New Testament Codes of conduct how about we look at 1 Corinthians 6:18 from the International Standard version;
Keep on running away from sexual immorality. Any other sin that a person commits is outside his body, but the person who sins sexually sins against his own body.

The New Testament didn't exist when Jesus stated those words we find in Matthew. The law Jesus was referring to for his audience was Mosaic Law. Something a guy named Paul and a bunch of modern Christians now deemed to consider a curse since it fits their agenda and yet sill consider some folks cursed under it when it fits other ignorant ideologies they hold to.

[Pastor Dave]

After a controversial week where Phil Robertson refused to apologize for his comments, and Willie Robertson said the show would not continue without Phil, A&E folded and said they would continue filming the show with Phil.

Thanks for the update Dan.

Looks like I'm done with this topic.

[lordie]

I strongly disagree w a& e actions to allow ths show and i agree w fawzo

Some of my friend were born w both genders one married a woman the other one married some one w mutigenders

Do u think jesus like hearing his bro and sis in the gay community pick on no he doesnt

Put your self in the gay person shoes being bullied and called all different kinds of names mmm i wouldnt like it would u think about it would u no u wouldnt .

Peace

[Brother Kaman]

I don't understand why one's own reality is so dull or unimportant that one must watch a scripted "reality" program on TV and then put any stock into what they are watching. If you want reality, look out your window.

[Fawzo]

I don't understand why one's own reality is so dull or unimportant that one must watch a scripted "reality" program on TV and then put any stock into what they are watching. If you want reality, look out your window.

Seems like idolatry to me

[lordie]

Brother kaman and fawzo

I dont get it neither hey give me a good law and order or adam 12 any day than reality tv .

[Raincloud]

I think it's just another controversy that American right Wing conservatives latch on to, in order to play their culture war game. I believe that the motive collectively is malice itself. I honestly don't think Conservatives care that much about Biblical teachings. I just think they like 'sticking it' to a repressed small minority of people who already struggle in life.

It's bullying, on a massive scale.

It's the opposite of Christ's actual commandment to love your neighbour and love your enemy.

It's malice the opposite of love.

I'm not sure why a rich old white multimillionaire is so threatened by gay people?

All Bullies are cowardly and afraid.

There is not much love or bravery here. There is not much mercy, which is what Christ desires.

[Dan56]

I think it's just another controversy that American right Wing conservatives latch on to, in order to play their culture war game. I believe that the motive collectively is malice itself. I honestly don't think Conservatives care that much about Biblical teachings. I just think they like 'sticking it' to a repressed small minority of people who already struggle in life.

It's bullying, on a massive scale.

It's the opposite of Christ's actual commandment to love your neighbour and love your enemy.

It's malice the opposite of love.

I'm not sure why a rich old white multimillionaire is so threatened by gay people?

All Bullies are cowardly and afraid.

There is not much love or bravery here. There is not much mercy, which is what Christ desires.

Robertson was fired for answering a question, yes it is bullying, by the minority.

No different than if I was thrown-off the ULC forum for writing what I just wrote.

[lordie]

Amen raincloud

And dan56 yes i get the point as well

And true i heard there allowing him to come back to duck dynasty after he makes some public service annoucements

[Raincloud]

Robertson was fired for answering a question, yes it is bullying, by the minority.

No different than if I was thrown-off the ULC forum for writing what I just wrote.

I'm curious Dan. Were you ever the victim of bullying growing up? Because your understanding of bullying seems to be the opposite of mine and the Dictionary's.

The privileged bully is not usually labelled the victim.

a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who are weaker

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bullying

[panpareil]

I think it's just another controversy that American right Wing conservatives latch on to, in order to play their culture war game. I believe that the motive collectively is malice itself. I honestly don't think Conservatives care that much about Biblical teachings. I just think they like 'sticking it' to a repressed small minority of people who already struggle in life.

It's bullying, on a massive scale.

It's the opposite of Christ's actual commandment to love your neighbour and love your enemy.

It's malice the opposite of love.

I'm not sure why a rich old white multimillionaire is so threatened by gay people?

All Bullies are cowardly and afraid.

There is not much love or bravery here. There is not much mercy, which is what Christ desires.

I thought the will of the majority was a good thing and not to be opposed by minorities, just as the right should stop being obstructionist when they are in the voting minority. Shouldn't all other minorities should do the same?

And I do not think he is at all threatened by gays, nor is he bullying them. He's just not accepting them as normal. Pretty much as some do not like country music and seek to not having it play in their environment. Or how some people will still seek to stop people from smoking in public even though second hand smoke has been found to not cause cancer or heart disease. But if they like pot they will reason that somehow that smoking carcinogen will be acceptable in public.

Not being accepted is not the same as being bullied, and when you are in the minority you do not get your way.

For those who do not get the sarcasm and irony here because they are being slapped with their own fish, I will point it out.

[panpareil]

I'm curious Dan. Were you ever the victim of bullying growing up? Because your understanding of bullying seems to be the opposite of mine and the Dictionary's.

The privileged bully is not usually labelled the victim.

Quote

a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who are weaker

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bullying

Calling "bully" is also a childish passive-aggressive tactic to attack someone you hate, to somehow win even though you see yourself as a loser. It makes the self-defined loser comfortable being a loser because of the attention garnered, which makes them feel like a winner without having to do anything better. It more or less anchors them to the bottom of life.

And by the way, I was bullied severely when I was young. My experience is that only losers and the subnormal bully, and only winners and the above average are attacked as bullies. The real bullies are usually pitied for their lower status. While those who just do better are envied and attacked.

[grateful]

in the same interview he suggested that people of color were "just as happy" before the civil rights movement.

okay.

personally, I don't care if he is on a reality show or not, I don't have to watch it. and while gays may be a minority, friends of the family are many, myself and my family included

Edited December 31, 2013 by grateful